Before I attempt part three of my speculations, there are a
few more observations I want to make about what is happening right now. I have no inside dope. This is all reactions to what I see on the
tube or read.
First of all, the unemployment figures are much worse than
the topline numbers made public. This is
not at all suspicious, it is just a function of how the numbers are
collected. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics gathers monthly unemployment estimates [this is how it used to be,
back when I was studying these things; it may have changed] by surveying each
month a carefully constructed sample consisting of 50,000 households. Adult members of each household are asked
whether they are working fulltime, part time, or are not working. If not working, they are asked whether they
have looked for work in the last month.
If the answer is yes, they are listed as unemployed. If the answer is no, they are asked whether
they have looked in the past two months [or maybe more, I do not recall.] If the answer is no, they are listed as not
in the labor force; if yes, they are
listed as discouraged workers. [This
last category was added by the BLS to capture the manifest fact that many
people who would, in better times, be out looking for work, and are thus in
some obvious sense unemployed, have just given up. This is why the unemployed figure may
actually go up as things pick up and
discouraged workers go out looking for jobs, thereby joining the ranks of the
unemployed.]
Obviously, it takes a little while for the Bureau to conduct
each survey and assemble the results, so each month’s unemployed number is
about two weeks out of date when it is released. Everybody who deals with these numbers
understands this, and some cable news commentators say as much, but the great
big number on the screen is what everyone talks about. Furthermore, also commented on, people who
are out of work because of the pandemic are not going to go out and look for
jobs when they have been told to stay home.
So things are way worse than they appear.
A second point, of possibly considerable importance when we
try to get our hands around the somewhat longer term consequences of the
virus-caused economic crash.
Traditionally, in an economic turndown, the men are laid off at the
factories and mines and sit around drinking cheap beer until a call goes out to
come back to work. There will be some of
that, but not nearly as much as in the old days. Many still functioning businesses are
discovering that they can function with fewer employees, many of whom can work
from home. Even after things pick up,
the bosses may decide to continue with what was originally an ad hoc adjustment
to reality, thereby saving considerable sums on business travel, office space,
and so forth. We may see another
shakeout in the airline industry, for example.
I am reminded of the time – is it now forty years ago? – when a large
number of companies with bloated middle management ranks slenderized, throwing
a lot of previously well-paid types into the ranks of the unemployed. Not only did they find that the firing of
these semi-important people did not diminish their profits; it did not even
diminish their gross receipts, which, if the senior executives believed the
nonsense they learned in their college Econ courses, meant that those laid off
employees had zero marginal productivity and
so did all of the retained employees in the same niche in the company’s
organizational chart, so that ALL the middle
level managers should be paid zero.
Oh well, as they say, don’t get me started.
It is blindingly obvious that there is a rational response
to this crisis, but it is not available in any systematic way in a capitalist
economy. [“Anonymous” is right that we
must continue to use the term “capitalist” and not default to “the economy” as
though our response to the virus is, like the virus itself, a matter of
ideologically neutral science.] To put
it as simply as possible, keep essential services going with all the testing,
contract tracing, and mitigation needed, pay those who provide those services decent wages, keep everyone else home
as long as necessary, and have the government print and distribute the money
necessary to enable everyone at home to buy the services being provided by the essential
workers. Sheer desperation has compelled
the Congress to take half steps in this direction, but they will not follow through
adequately, as we can already see.
4 comments:
The Danes believe that their economy is capitalist, yet they have pretty much temporarily nationalized company payrolls in order to avoid many of the problems identified in the latter part of this post.
I rarely read Kristof but his current piece is less earnest and whiny than most, and this passage is on point.
"... while Americans on both left and right often think of Scandinavia as quasi-socialist, Scandinavians flinch at that characterization. They see themselves as simply pursuing market economies, just with higher taxes and greater social benefits than the United States."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/opinion/us-denmark-economy.html
I disagree with how important making the distinction that we have a fairly 'capitalistic' system is when discussing what kind of shape the economy is currently in. Viruses don't really make distinctions between socialism or capitalism or communism. Any of those systems have economies that would suffer when people can't go to work and produce things. It seems reasonable to me to use the word economy when talking about the economy.
Re: management. Back in the mid-1960s I had a data job a a major regional bank while in university. Bottom clerk position and going in a line up the chart I was five or six folks below the CEO. Kept in touch with some folks and by the 1980s five didn't get one out of the data center.
Jerry Brown,
Yes, I agree. "Economies" and "markets" exist in capitalist, feudalist, socialist, etc. forms, and none of these are necessarily immune to pandemics.
But the point was an ideological one rather than a literal one.
The Right has done an extremely good job mystifying its brutality with terms like "the free market," "school choice," "right to work" legislation, etc., which confers on them a sort of benign, even idealized neutrality. Now, "re-open the economy" has become the campaign-ready slogan for, among other things, forcing workers back to meat processing plants, but not forcing the companies to provide safe working conditions. Although this is an "economy," to be sure, it's an especially brutal capitalist economy that enables this coercion. I for one think we should "name" that.
As I see it, it's helpful to re-frame the terms of the conflict and re-draw the battle lines, given the Right's skill at normalizing oppressive structures / practices by re-branding them with neutral-sounding terminology. When we play on their terms, they'll always have conceptual home-field advantage.
Post a Comment